One of the many casualties of the Trump administration’s crackdown on “soft power” that enabled many democratic media and truth to power global editorial initiatives has been BenarNews, a welcome contribution to the Asia-Pacific region.

BenarNews had been producing a growing range of insightful on powerful articles on the region’s issues, articles that were amplified by other media such as Asia Pacific Report.

Managing editor Kate Beddall and her deputy, Imran Vittachi, announced the suspension of the decade-old BenarNews editorial operation this week, stating in their “Letter from the editors”:

“After 10 years of reporting from across the Asia-Pacific, BenarNews is pausing operations due to matters beyond its control.

“The US administration has withheld the funding that we rely on to bring our readers and viewers the news from Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Bangladesh, the Philippines and island-states and territories in the Pacific.

“We have always strived to offer clear and accurate news on security, politics and human rights, to shed light on news that others neglect or suppress, and to cover issues that will shape the future of Asia and the Pacific.

“Only last month, we marked our 10th anniversary with a video showcasing some of the tremendous but risky work done by our journalists.

“Amid uncertainty about the future, we’d like to take this opportunity to thank our readers and viewers for their loyalty and trust in BenarNews.

“And to Benar journalists, cartoonists and commentary writers in Washington, Asia, Australia and the Pacific, thank you for your hard work and passion in serving the public and helping make a difference.

“We hope that our funding is restored and that we will be back online soon.”

BenarNews: A decade of truth in democracies at risk.    Video: BenarNews

One of the BenarNews who has contributed much to the expansion of Pacific coverage is Brisbane-based former SBS Pacific television journalist Stefan Ambruster.

He has also been praising his team in a series of social media postings, such as Papua New Guinea correspondent Harlyne Joku — “from the old school with knowledge of the old ways”. Ambruster writes:

“Way back in December 2022, Harlyne Joku joined Radio Free Asia/BenarNews and the first Pacific correspondent Stephen Wright as the PNG reporter to help kick this Pacific platform off.

“Her first report was Prime Minister James Marape accusing the media of creating a bad perception of the country.

“Almost 90 stories in just over two years carry Harlyne’s byline, covering politics, geopolitics, human and women’s rights, media freedom, police and tribal violence, corruption, Bougainville, and also PNG’s sheep.

“Her contacts allowed BenarNews Pacific to break stories consistently. She travelled to be on-ground to cover massacre aftermaths, natural disasters and the Pope in Vanimo (where she broke another story).

“Particularly, Harlyne — along with colleagues Victor Mambor in Jayapura and Ahmad Panthoni and Dandy Koswaraputra in Jakarta — allowed BenarNews, to cover West Papua like no other news service. From both sides of the border.

“And it was noticed in Indonesia, PNG and the Pacific region.

“Last year, she was barred from covering President Probowo Subianto’s visit to Moresby, a move condemned by the Media Council of Papua New Guinea.

“At press conferences she questioned Marape about the failure to secure a UN human rights mission to West Papua, as a Melanesian Spearhead Group special envoy, which led to an eventual apology by fellow envoy, Fiji’s Prime Minister Rabuka, to Pacific leaders.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The future of Māori radio in Aotearoa New Zealand requires increased investment in both online platforms and traditional airwaves, says a senior manager.

Matthew Tukaki, station manager at Waatea Digital, spoke with Te Ao Māori News about the future of Māori radio.

He said there was an urgent need for changes to ensure a sustainable presence on both AM/FM airwaves and digital platforms.

“One of the big challenges will always be funding. Many of our iwi stations operate with very limited resources, as their focus is more on manaakitanga (hospitality) and aroha (compassion),” Tukaki said.

He said that Waatea Digital had been exploring various new digital strategies to enhance viewership and engagement across the media landscape.

“We need assistance and support to transition to these new platforms,” Tukaki said.

He also highlighted the continued importance of traditional AM frequencies, particularly during emergencies like Cyclone Gabrielle, where these stations served as vital emergency broadcasters.

Report originally by Te Ao Māori.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The union for Australian journalists has welcomed the delivery by the federal government of more than $150 million to support the sustainability of public interest journalism over the next four years.

Combined with the announcement of the revamped News Bargaining Initiative, this could result in up to $400 million in additional funding for the sector over the coming years.

The Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance says the new funding under the News Media Assistance Program (News MAP) will boost journalism and media diversity but must be tied to the enforcement of minimum employment standards for all media workers, including freelancers, says the MEAA website.

The acting director of MEAA media, Michelle Rae, said the Albanese government had picked up on recommendations from the union during consultation over the News MAP earlier this year.

“We are pleased that the government has adopted a holistic and structured approach to support for the news media industry, rather than the patchwork of band aid solutions that have been implemented in the past,” she said.

“MEAA has long argued that commercially produced public interest journalism requires systematic, long-term support beyond a three-year time frame to ensure its viability and to promote a diverse media landscape.

“The longer-term approach confirmed by the government will allow media outlets to plan for their future sustainability with additional certainty about their income over the next four years.”

Importantly, the new funding was primarily directed at local and community news, the sector that had been most impacted by the decline of advertising revenue over the past two decades.

“The $116.7 million to support this sector will go a long way towards helping communities in regional Australia and the suburbs of our main cities to rebuild local journalism in areas that have become or are in danger of becoming news deserts,” Rae said.

“The unique role of Australian Associated Press as an independent and accessible news service has been recognised with $33 million in new funding.

“MEAA also welcomes the government’s commitment to mandate at least $6 million of its advertising budget is spent in regional newspapers.”

Rae said that while it was worthwhile to explore measures to attract philanthropic funding of the news media industry, any solutions to the decline of public interest journalism must not be reliant on sponsorships or donations that undermine the independence of media outlets.

“There is a place for demand-side incentives to subscribe and pay for quality news media through the use of subsidies, vouchers or tax deductibility,” she said.

“But care must be taken to ensure that philanthropic funding does not allow donors to dictate the editorial policies of media outlets.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Kia ora koutou. Ko Ngāpuhi tōku iwi. Ko Ngāti Manu toku hapu. Ko Karetu tōku marae. Ko Myles Thomas toku ingoa.

I grew up with David Beatson, on the telly. Back in the 1970s, he read the late news which I watched in bed with my parents. Later, David and I worked together to save TVNZ 7 and also regional TV stations.

The Better Public Media (BPM) trust honours David each year with our memorial address, because his fight for non-commercial TV was an honourable one. He wasn’t doing it for himself.

He wasn’t doing it so he could get a job or because it would benefit him. He fought for public media because he knew it was good for Aotearoa NZ.

Like us at Better Public Media, he recognised the benefits to our country from locally produced public media.

David knew, from a long career in media, including as editor of The Listener and as Jim Bolger’s press secretary, that NZ’s media plays an important role in our nation’s culture, social cohesion, and democracy.

NZ culture is very important. NZ culture is so unique and special, yet it has always been at risk of being swamped by content from overseas. The US especially with its crackpot conspiracies, extreme racial tensions, and extreme tensions about everything to be honest.

Local content the antidote
Local content is the antidote to this. It reflects us, it portrays us, it defines New Zealand, and whether we like it or not, it defines us. But it’s important to remember that what we see reflected back to us comes through a filter.

This speech is coming to you through a filter, called Myles Thomas.

Commercial news reflects our world through a filter of sensation and danger to hold our attention. That makes NZ seem more shallow, greedy, fearful and dangerous.

The social media filter makes the world seem more angry, reactive and complaining.
RNZ’s filter is, I don’t know, thoughtful, a bit smug, middle class.

The New Zealand Herald filter makes us think every dairy is being ram-raided every night.

And The Spinoff filter suggests NZ is hip, urban and mildly infatuated with Winston Peters.

These cultural reflections are very important actually because they influence us, how we see NZ and its people.

It is not a commodity
That makes content, cultural content, special. It is not a commodity. It’s not milk powder.

We don’t drink milk and think about flooding in Queenstown, drinking milk doesn’t make us laugh about the Koiwoi accent, we don’t drink milk and identify with a young family living in poverty.

Local content is rich and powerful, and important to our society.

When the government supports the local media production industry it is actually supporting the audiences and our culture. Whether it is Te Mangai Paho, or NZ On Air or the NZ Film Commission, and the screen production rebate, these organisations fund New Zealand’s identity and culture, and success.

Don’t ask Treasury how to fund culture. Accountants don’t understand it, they can’t count it and put it in a spreadsheet, like they can milk solids. Of course they’ll say such subsidies or rebates distort the “market”, that’s the whole point. The market doesn’t work for culture.

Moreover, public funding of films and other content fosters a more stable long-term industry, rather than trashy short-termism that is completely vulnerable to outside pressures, like the US writer’s strike.

We have a celebrated content production industry. Our films, video, audio, games etc. More local content brings stability to this industry, which by the way also brings money into the country and fosters tourism.

We cannot use quota
New Zealand needs more local content.

And what’s more, it needs to be accessible to audiences, on the platforms that they use.

But in NZ we do have one problem. Unlike Australia, we can’t use a quota because our GATT agreement does not include a carve out for local music or media quotas.

In the 1990s when GATT was being negotiated, the Aussies added an exception to their GATT agreement allowing a quota for Aussie cultural content. So they can require radio stations to play a certain amount of local music. Now they’re able to introduce a Netflix quota for up to 20 percent of all revenue generated in Aussie.

We can’t do that. Why? Because back in the 1990s the Bolger government and MFAT decided against putting the same exception into NZ’s GATT agreement.

But there is another way of doing it, if we take a lead from Denmark and many European states. Which I’ll get to in a minute.

The second important benefit of locally produced public media is social cohesion, how society works, the peace and harmony and respect that we show each other in public, depends heavily on the “public sphere”, of which, media is a big part.

Power of media to polarise
Extensive research in Europe and North America shows the power of media to polarise society, which can lead to misunderstanding, mistrust and hatred.

But media can also strengthen social cohesion, particularly for minority communities, and that same research showed that public media, otherwise known as public service media, is widely regarded to be an important contributor to tolerance in society, promoting social cohesion and integrating all communities and generations.

The third benefit is democracy. Very topical at the moment. I’ve already touched on how newsmedia affect our culture. More directly, our newsmedia influences the public dialogue over issues of the day.

It defines that dialogue. It is that dialogue.

So if our newsmedia is shallow and vacuous ignoring policies and focussing on the polls and the horse-race, then politicians who want to be elected, tailor their messages accordingly.

There’s plenty of examples of this such as National’s bootcamp policy, or Labour’s removing GST on food. As policies, neither is effective. But in the simplified 30 seconds of commercial news and headlines, these policies resonate.

Is that a good thing, that policies that are known to fail are nonetheless followed because our newsmedia cater to our base instincts and short attention spans?

Disaster for democracy
In my view, commercial media is actually disaster for democracy. All over the world.

But of course, we can’t control commercial media. No-one’s suggesting that.

The only rational reaction is to provide stronger locally produced public media.

And unfortunately, NZ lacks public media.

Obviously Australia, the UK, Canada have more public media than us, they have more people, they can afford it. But what about countries our size, Ireland? Smaller population, much more public media.

Denmark, Norway, Finland, all with roughly 5 million people, and all have significantly better public media than us. Even after the recent increases from Willie Jackson, NZ still spends just $44 per person on public media. $44 each year.

When we had a licence fee it was $110. Jim Bolger’s government got rid of that and replaced it with funding from general taxation — which means every year the Minister of Finance, working closely with Treasury, decides how much to spend on public media for that year.

This is what I call the curse of annual funding, because it makes funding public media a very political decision.

National, let us be honest, the National Party hates public media, maybe because they get nicer treatment on commercial news. We see this around the world — the Daily Mail, Sky News Australia, Newstalk ZB . . . most commercial media quite openly favours the right.

Systemic bias
This is a systemic bias. Because right-wing newsmedia gets more clicks.

Right-wing politicians are quite happy about that. Why fund public to get in the way? Even if it it benefits our culture, social cohesion, and democracy.

New Zealand is the same, the last National government froze RNZ funding for nine years.

National Party spokesperson on broadcasting Melissa Lee fought against the ANZPM merger, and now she’s fighting the News Bargaining Bill. As minister she could cut RNZ and NZ On Air’s budget.

But it wouldn’t just be cost-cutting. It would actually be political interference in our newsmedia, an attempt to skew the national conversation in favour of the National Party, by favouring commercial media.

So Aotearoa NZ needs two things. More money to be spent on public media, and less control by the politicians. Sustainable funding basically.

The best way to achieve it is a media levy.

Highly targeted tax
For those who don’t know, a levy is a tax that is highly targeted, and we have a lot of them, like the Telecommunications Development Levy (or TDL) which currently gathers $10 million a year from internet service providers like Spark and 2 Degrees to pay for rural broadband.

We’re all paying for better internet for farmers basically. When first introduced by the previous National government it collected $50 million but it’s dropped down a bit lately.

This is one of many levies that we live with and barely notice. Like the levy we pay on our insurance to cover the Earthquake Commission and the Fire and Emergency Levy. There are maritime levies, energy levies to fund EECA and Waka Kotahi, levies on building consents for MBIE, a levy on advertising pays for the ASA, the BSA is funded by a levy.

Lots of levies and they’re very effective.

So who could the media levy, levy?

ISPs like the TDL? Sure, raise the TDL back up to $50 million or perhaps higher, and it only adds a dollar onto everyone’s internet bill. There’s $50 million.

But the real target should be Big Tech, social media and large streaming services. I’m talking about Facebook, Google, Netflix, YouTube and so on. These are the companies that have really profited from the advent of online media, and at the expense of locally produced public media.

Funding content creation
We need a way to get these companies to make, or at least fund, content creation here in Aotearoa. Denmark recently proposed a solution to this problem with an innovative levy of 2 percent on the revenue of streaming services like Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney.

But that 2 percent rises to 5 percent if the streaming company doesn’t spend at least 5 percent of their revenue on making local Danish content. Denmark joins many other European countries already doing this — Germany, Poland, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, France and even Romania are all about to levy the streamers to fund local production.

Australia is planning to do so as well.

But that’s just online streaming companies. There’s also social media and search engines which contribute nothing and take almost all the commercial revenue. The Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill will address that to a degree but it’s not open and we won’t know if the amounts are fair.

Another problem is that it’s only for news publishers — not drama or comedy producers, not on-demand video, not documentary makers or podcasters. Social media and search engines frequently feature and put advertising around these forms of content, and hoover up the digital advertising that would otherwise help fund them, so they should also contribute to them.

A Media Levy can best be seen as a levy on those companies that benefit from media on the internet, but don’t contribute to the public benefits of media — culture, social cohesion and democracy. And that’s why the Media Levy can include internet service providers, and large companies that sell digital advertising and subscriptions.

Note, this would target large companies over a certain size and revenue, and exclude smaller platforms, like most levies do.

Separate from annual budget
The huge benefit of a levy is that it is separate from the annual budget, so it’s fiscally neutral, and politicians can’t get their mits on it. It removes the curse of annual funding.

It creates a funding stream derived from the actual commercial media activities which produce the distribution gaps in the first place, for which public media compensates. That’s why the proceeds would go to the non-commercial platform and the funding agencies — Te Mangai Paho, NZ On Air and the Film Commission.

One final point. This wouldn’t conflict with the new Digital Services Tax proposed by the government because that’s a replacement for Income Tax. A Media Levy, like all levies, sits over and above income tax.

So there we go. I’ve mentioned Jim Bolger three times! I’ve also outlined some quite straight-forward methods to fund public media sustainably, and to fund a significant increase in local content production, video, film, audio and journalism.

None of it needs to be within the grasp of Melissa Lee or Willie Jackson, or David Seymour.

All of it can be used to create local content that improves democracy, social cohesion and Kiwi culture.

Myles Thomas is a trustee of the Better Public Media Trust (BPM). He is a former television producer and director who in 2012 established the Save TVNZ 7 campaign. Thomas is now studying law. This commentary was this year’s David Beatson Memorial Address at a public meeting in Grey Lynn last night on broadcast policy for the NZ election 2023.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Concerns have been raised about foreign influence in Pacific media after it was revealed Solomon Islands’ longest-running newspaper received funding from China in return for favourable coverage.

Earlier this week the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) revealed how China has been attempting to gain influence in media outlets in Palau and Solomon Islands.

In Palau, a failed media deal pushed by China has revealed how Beijing was seeking to exert its influence in the Pacific region by using political pressure and funding to capture local elites, including in the media.

The OCCRP said at least one front page story had been supplied by an initiative that was backed by investors with ties to China’s police and military.

China had even more success gaining favour in Solomon Islands, where it has steadily been increasing its presence and influence since the Pacific nation switched diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China in 2019.

There, according to the OCCRP,  the Solomon Star newspaper received Chinese money after giving assurances it would push messages favourable to Beijing.

Desperate for funding, editors at the Solomon Star wrote up a proposal to China’s embassy in Honiara in July last year.

Paper struggling to keep up
The paper was struggling to keep up and needed assistance — its printing machines were deteriorating and papers were often hitting the streets a day late, according to the proposal the Solomon Star sent to China.

Its radio station, Paoa FM, was having difficulty broadcasting into remote provinces.

“Reporters obtained a July 2022 draft funding proposal from the Solomon Star to China’s embassy in Honiara in which the paper requested 1,150,000 Solomon Islands dollars ($206,300) for equipment including a replacement for its ageing newspaper printer and a broadcast tower for its radio station, PAOA FM,” OCCRP said.

“The Solomon Star said in the proposal that decrepit equipment was causing editions to come out late and ‘curtailing news flow about China’s generous and lightning economic and infrastructure development in Solomon Islands’.”

According to the proposal, seen by the ABC’s Pacific Beat programme, China stood to gain “enormously”.

“The intended outcome of this project . . .  is that Solomon Star newspaper will be produced on time for the benefits of its readers, subscribers and the advertising community,” it said.

“China’s timely intervention in Solomon Islands’ infrastructure and economic development will also benefit enormously as news about this new-found partnership is published.”

OCCRP has confirmed the printing equipment the Solomon Star wanted was delivered earlier this year.

Alfred Sasako, Solomon Star’s editor, said the newspaper maintained its independence.

He told the OCCRP that any suggestion it had a pro-Beijing bias was “a figment of the imagination of anyone who is trying to demonise China”.

Sasako told the OCCRP the paper had tried unsuccessfully for more than a decade to get funding from Australia.

Financial desperation drives ailing paper to Chinese backers
Ofani Eremae, a journalist and co-founder at In-depth Solomons who used to work at the Solomon Star, said it has been struggling financially since COVID, and the majority of staff have left.

“They are really in a very, very bad financial situation, so they are desperate,” he told the ABC.

“I think this is what’s prompting them to look for finances elsewhere to keep the operation going.

“It just so happens that China is here and they [Solomon Star] found someone who’s willing to give them a lot of money.”

Taking the assistance from China has raised questions about the paper’s independence, he said.

“It’s a paper with the reputation people trust but in situations like that, you lose your credibility, you lose your independence and of course you become some kind of organisation that’s been controlled by outsiders,” Eremae told the ABC.

Government spending on advertisements in the paper could help it somewhat, but Eremae said “democratic countries, especially the US” should step in and help.

‘Have to defend democracy’
“They have to defend democracy, they have to defend freedom of the press in this country,” he told the ABC.

“Otherwise China, which seems to have a lot of money, they could just easily come in and take control of things here.”

University of South Pacific associate professor of journalism Shailendra Singh said “the Chinese offer hit the right spot” with the paper facing financial challenges due to covid and advertising revenues going to social media.

“If you look across the region, governments are shaking hands with China, making all kinds of deals and also receiving huge amounts of funds,” he told the ABC.

Dr Singh said media outlets had become part of the competition between large countries vying for influence in the region and warned other struggling Pacific media companies could be tempted by similar offers.

“They would seriously consider surrendering some of their editorial independence for a new printing press, just to keep them in business,” he said.

“Let’s just hope that this does not become a trend.”

The concerns these kind of deals bring was clear.

‘Risk of compromising editorial independence’
“This is simply because of the risk of compromising editorial independence,” Dr Singh told the ABC.

“There is concern the country’s major newspaper is turning into a Chinese state party propaganda rag.”

If China managed to sway both the Solomon Islands government and its main newspaper, that would create an “unholy alliance”, Dr Singh said.

“The people would be at the mercy of a cabal, with very little — if not zero — public dissent,” he said.

Despite the concerns, Dr Singh said there were some sound reasons for the Solomon Star to enter the deal.

“If they don’t sign the deal they will continue to struggle financially and it might even mean the end of the Solomon Star,” he told the ABC.

Only the Solomon Star publisher and editor had a full grasp of the situation and the financial challenges the paper faced, he said.

‘Makes business sense’
“From our lofty perch we have all these grand ideas about media independence in theory, but does anyone consider the business realities?”

“It may not make sense to the Americans or the Australians, but makes perfect sense to the Solomon Star from a business survival point of view.”

Solomon Islands and Pacific outlets have been funded for media development by Australia and other governments.

Third party organisations such as the ABC International Development supports the media community across the Pacific to promote public interest journalism and hold businesses, governments and other institutions to account.

But Solomon Islands opposition MP Peter Kenilorea Junior said he was concerned by direct support given to the Solomon Star by a foreign government.

“It’s totally inappropriate for any government — let alone the Chinese government — to be involved in our newspaper publications, because that is supposed to be independent,” he told the ABC.

“I don’t think standards are kept when there is this, according to the report, involvement by the Chinese to try and perhaps reward the paper for saying or passing on stories that are positive about a particular country.”

Georgina Kekea, president of the Media Association of Solomon Islands, said the financial support did not come as a surprise as most businesses were struggling.

“It’s quite difficult for us to ensure that the media industry thrives when they are really floundering, where companies are finding it hard to pay their staff salary,” she told the ABC.

Solomon Star says ‘stop geo-politicising’ media
Following the OCCRP report, the Solomon Star on Tuesday published an response on page six headlined “Solomon Star condemns unrelated attack by US-funded OCCRP”.

“It is sad to see the US-funded OCCRP through its agent in Solomon Islands, Ofani Eremae, and his so-called ‘In-depth Solomons’ website making unrelented attempts to tarnish the reputation of the Solomon Star Newspaper for receiving funding support from China,” the paper said.

“One thing that Solomon Star can assure the right-minded people of this nation is that we will continue to inform and educate you on issues that matter without any geopolitical bias and that China through its Embassy in Honiara never attempted to stop us from doing so . . .  Solomon Star also continued to publish news items not in the favour of China and the Chinese Embassy in Honiara never issued a reproachment.

“It is indeed sad to see the OCCRP-funded journalists in Solomon Islands and the Pacific trying to bring geopolitics into the Pacific and Solomon Islands media landscape and Solomon Star strongly urges these journalists and their financiers to stop geo-politicising the media.”

OCCRP said it “is funded worldwide by a variety of government and non-government donors”.

“OCCRP’s work in the Pacific Islands is currently funded by a US-government grant that gives the donor zero say in editorial decisions,” it said.

Dr Singh said whether aid came from China, the US or Australia: “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”

The ABC has sought comment from the Solomon Star and the Chinese Embassy in Solomon Islands.

Republished from ABC Pacific Beat with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]> https://eveningreport.nz/2022/07/25/siouxsie-wiles-mini-doco-funding-criticism-does-vanishing-act-online/ Mon, 25 Jul 2022 00:17:55 +0000 https://eveningreport.nz/2022/07/25/siouxsie-wiles-mini-doco-funding-criticism-does-vanishing-act-online/ By Colin Peacock, RNZ Mediawatch presenter

Why did criticism of a modest sum spent on a single mini-documentary made two years ago suddenly spring up in the news in two national networks this week — and then disappear?

“I’m just so sick of everything getting taxpayer money for these projects. Why can’t people just pay out of their own pocket?” Newstalk ZB deputy political editor Jason Walls asked on air last Tuesday.

“I just keep seeing these things crop up time and time again, when we have hospitals overwhelmed. Twenty thousand dollars is not tons of money in the grand scheme of things, [but] that sort of stuff keeps adding up,” he added, noting Three’s latest Masterchef series aired and screened without draining the public purse.

More public money than ever is being spent on media content these days — and the spending does deserve scrutiny.

But the single project that triggered his concern this week was not a costly one — or especially newsworthy.

Siouxsie and the Virus is a short online video shot in March 2020 and it has been online for almost two years now, with its sources of public funding noted at the end. It snapshots Dr Siouxsie Wiles’ life in “fly-on-the wall”-style as New Zealand went into Level 4 lockdown.

It was made for the online platform Loading Docs which describes itself as “a launchpad for New Zealand documentary shorts.”

Enables short documentaries
It enables local makers to produce short documentaries which are then available to other media outlets. It is backed by the NZ Film Commission, the government broadcasting funding agency NZ On Air and Māori broadcasting funding agent Te Māngai Pāho.

Walls’ objections were rushed out as a news story online by Newstalk ZB and its sister paper The New Zealand Herald. The stories were shared on social media with the claim “the amount spent has left some gobsmacked.”

“Would you pay $20,000 for a documentary about ‘science superhero’ Dr Siouxsie Wiles? Because you already did,”  the Herald’s story began.

On the air Walls had referred to $20,000 of Film Commission funding but said he wasn’t sure how Siouxsie and the Virus had been funded.

It turned out that sum relates to a different project yet to be made.

Loading Docs producer Julia Parnell told Mediawatch that Loading Docs provided $6000 in production finance and $2000 towards the post-production for Siouxsie and the Virus.

The funding model requires filmmakers to raise other funds themselves via crowdfunding.

Parnell told Mediawatch that Siouxsie and the Virus raised $7685 through the crowdfunding platform “Boosted”.

Boosted by The Herald
Ironically the mini-doco was also boosted by The New Zealand Herald back in 2020.

“It was launched in partnership with The New Zealand Herald on their platform, along with a high-profile story in [Weekend Herald supplement] Canvas. It then went on our platform, TVNZ On Demand, RNZ, PlayStuff and The Spinoff. It has had over 200,000 views and it has been so appreciated by audiences,” Parnell told Mediawatch.

Initially the director, Gwen Isaac, was funded to make a completely different film about a Kiwi MMA fighter in Japan.

“When the covid lockdown happened, we had to pivot and find something else. The director was able to get that access (to Dr Wiles) in that week prior to covid. It was a society-changing moment and we were able to capture it. I’m very proud of that,” Parnell told Mediawatch.

“Loading Docs has a platform-agnostic approach which means that more New Zealanders can connect with our work and the work of our documentary makers,” she said.

On social media, Dr Wiles pointed out on Thursday she made nothing from the mini-doco, and $20,000 would have cost each New Zealanders about half a cent.

She also pointed out NZME — the owner of Newstalk ZB and The Herald  – received $9 million in covid wage subsidy in 2020 that would have taken $2.25 out of the pocket of every Kiwi.

LOL I just found out how much taxpayer money NZME who owns the NZ Herald and Newstalk ZB got in the first half of 2020. $8.6 MILLION! If you are a taxpayer, that’s $2.23 you paid. Oh, and their net PROFITS after tax rose by $1 million to $7.8 MILLION. https://t.co/pq6WhvnXyO pic.twitter.com/kOxQk0v5yM

— Dr Siouxsie Wiles (@SiouxsieW) July 21, 2022

Wage subsidies repaid
Some media companies  — including Stuff and The Spinoff – repaid wages subsidies received in that year when business subsequently stabilised.

NZME has not, even after profits and revenue increased in 2021.

NZME CEO Michael Boggs told Mediawatch in April they used the wage subsidy for the intended purpose of retaining jobs and NZME declined the second tranche of wage subsidy when it was on offer.

Dr Wiles’ observations would have been relevant additions to The Herald and ZB online news stories highlighting the “gobsmacking” Film Commission funding decision, but by this time anyone who went looking for that would only find that those stories were not online anymore.

The Herald‘s link yields an error message that says, “Oops, looks like a dead end”.

The stories have been scrubbed from The Herald and ZB social media feeds without explanation.

Thanks @MediawatchNZ for looking into the dangerous hitjob Newstalk ZB and NZ Herald did on me last week. This was never about asking questions about the use of taxpayer funds. I honestly believe it was about stoking outrage, attacking the arts, & undermining & harming me. https://t.co/SdwWwF90z1

— Dr Siouxsie Wiles (@SiouxsieW) July 23, 2022

First funding questioning
Loading Docs’ Parnell said this was the first time the funding of any production had been questioned in the media.

But it’s not the first time ZB’s Walls has criticised public spending on media content.

Last year he labelled a range of arts projects bankrolled with covid recovery funds “a smorgasbord of abject waste” under the headline: Not a single cent more for podcasts, poetry and picture books in the name of ‘covid recovery.’ He wrote:

“It’s easy to take aim at the Creative NZ funding and to poke holes in what the government’s decided to fund through its $55m Public Interest Journalism Fund.”

Last year NZME secured up to $2995,702 from the PIJF to employ 15 reporters “to fill gaps in court reporting” in 11 of its publications — as well as two national reporting roles.

In 2020 — the year Siouxsie and the Virus was made — the PIJF allocated up to $200,280 to NZME for “a kaupapa editor and an audio innovation editor to improve access to news for blind and low vision New Zealanders.”

NZME also received up to $940,188 over two years “to retain reporting roles in its free community newspapers across Rotorua, Napier, Hastings, Whanganui, Manawatū, Taupō, Horowhenua, and Kapiti.”

More funding
An interactive NZME project exploring “how and when land became part of the Pākehā property system in Aotearoa New Zealand” got a further $80,500.

And just this month, the PIJF fund announced $255,000 of taxpayers money for a Herald series called Unraveling Anxiety.

This is based on a series of videos for The Herald’s website showing how people from different cultural backgrounds coped with anxiety disorders during covid-19 lockdowns and after.

It’s the kind of idea you might expect to find on a platform like Loading Docs, but so far The Herald and ZB have not aired any views on whether that is unjustifiably draining money from the public purse at a time of stress in our hospitals.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Watch Siouxsie and the Virus on YouTube

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]> https://eveningreport.nz/2021/10/14/how-nzs-public-interest-journalism-fund-can-help-normalise-diversity/ Wed, 13 Oct 2021 22:18:01 +0000 https://eveningreport.nz/2021/10/14/how-nzs-public-interest-journalism-fund-can-help-normalise-diversity/ SPECIAL REPORT: By Sri Krishnamurthi for Asia Pacific Report

The announcement in February of a new $55 million, three-year Public Interest Journalism Fund (PIJF) by Minister for Broadcasting and Media Kris Faafoi suggested a revitalisation of tired old traditional media models.

Since then it has been viewed suspiciously by journalists with right-leaning tendencies and denizens of the dark who contend the government is attempting to curry favour with this bauble.

What makes it more than a shiny trinket became clear with one of the five goals of the PIJF being an ambition to “reflect the cultural diversity of New Zealand”.

Public Interest Journalism does not pander to the murky side of clickbait, advertorial, fake news, censorship, propaganda and voyeurism.

The fund ‘was a necessity’

As experienced journalist and producer Raewyn Rasch, who was appointed by New Zealand on Air (NZOA) as Head of Journalism alludes, the fund was a necessity.

“The impact of covid-19 had exacerbated the decline of traditional commercial media models,” she said.

“Prior to covid-19, rapid technological change and changing consumer behaviour was already causing financial constraints for media organisations as advertising revenues moved away from traditional media outlets towards online platforms and social media.”

It was time to sweep with a new broom as the media grappled with the changing landscape.

“As a result of covid-19, further declines in advertising revenue have resulted in significant journalist redundancies, pay cuts and disposal of infrastructure, with further cost-cutting measures expected,” explained Rasch.

That was confirmed by Crawford Media Consulting, which was engaged to interview industry players and find dominant trends prevalent in the media market.

“The decline in the provision of public interest journalism (PIJ) to New Zealand audiences is real and widespread. At the same time, PIJ output has reduced, the attractiveness of journalism as a career has collapsed.

Closure of journalism schools
This collapse is seen in the closure of journalism schools and the declining applications to one high-profile journalism course,” the report said.

Rasch saw the dire need for a calculated injection of funding to secure the decline in industry numbers.

“Covid-19 has accelerated the need to confront the pre-existing and fundamental challenges facing the news media sector,” Rasch said.

“Media companies have to adapt and transition to more sustainable business models that would fit the future media outlook, and continue to provide vital public interest journalism”.

It was then easy to assume then that Māori, Pasifika and other ethnic minority media had been marginalised.

It came as no surprise that Taualeo’o Stephen Stehlin, managing director of Sunpix, which produces Tagata Pasifika (TP), felt aggrieved at the way the Pacific programme was sidelined by state-owned Television New Zealand.

“I think [PIJF] is a great start and we have [funding] for two roles [for its new website TP+] for two years, although it is more than TP which gets funded from year to year [by the Ministry of Heritage and Culture].

‘Lack of leadership’
“But the big media companies, which we were part of for 27 years, then turned around and dumped us for no other reason than a lack of leadership.

“Personally, it has been good for us but for the development and capacity-building for Pacific people it is appalling because then the training is left to much smaller organisations like us, Coconet and PMN (Pacific Media Network) and we are all tiny in the grand scheme of things,” Stehlin said.

Rasch, however, said the PIJF had worked hard with applications received to fund diversity.

“We are particularly conscious of the need for diversity, in Māori, Pacific, and Asian journalism,” she told BusinessDesk in June.

Selwyn Manning, whose independent company Multimedia Investments Ltd, publisher of Evening Report, applied but was unsuccessful, said the PIJF sought to address issues of diversity.

“There is a clear and considered effort to address diversity through prioritising a biculturalism-first approach,” Manning said.

“And, it is encouraging that Māori media and Māori initiatives were highly represented among those entities that were successful in their funding applications — at least in the first round of PIJF considerations.”

Among five goals
Among the five goals the PIJF applicants had to achieve were to:

• Actively promote the principles of Partnership, Participation and Active Protection under Te Tiriti o Waitangi;
• Acknowledge Māori as a Te Tiriti partner; and
• Reflect the cultural diversity of New Zealand

That spoke volumes for the hoops applicants had to jump through, said Manning.

“What was particularly obvious was all applicants were required to address and detail their respective commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Te Reo Māori,” he said.

“This effort was clearly considered and well beyond past tokenisms that mainstream media entities were, in past years, encouraged to address.”

He paid tribute to RNZ’s Guyon Espiner and others for inculcating Te Reo gaining acceptance in the New Zealand media vernacular.

Concerted effort
“Generally in 2021, we have seen a concerted effort on behalf of mainstream multimedia producers to present a bicultural face to their reporting,” said Manning.

“I believe Radio New Zealand producers and reporters first set an excellent benchmark in this regard. Guyon Espiner and others pioneered this bicultural expression, and I have full admiration for their effort.

“The Public Interest Journalism Fund certainly seized on this cultural shift as an opportunity to embed this expression of biculturalism within its funding selection processes,” Manning said.

“New Zealand on Air should be applauded for making such a clear requirement to all PIJF applicants.”

Media consultant and former editor of The New Zealand Herald Dr Gavin Ellis, who was one of a group of independent assessors who made the initial assessments, was in agreement with that view.

“The criteria for the PIJF are certainly wide enough to accommodate broad diversity and the first two funding rounds show Māori and Pasifika media are well represented. Other ethnicities have also received funding.

“Much depends on the applicants: to receive the funding they must present as compelling a case as possible. So the ball is in their court,” Dr Ellis said.

‘No systemic problems’
“I’m satisfied the PIJF has no systemic problems relating to diversity. Indeed, I would say the opposite. Diversity is a key driver.”

Manning took this further with his assertion that diversity went beyond the realms of mainstream media.

“If Public Interest Journalism funding is accepted as necessary to maintain democratic balance, then such initiatives must go further than mere corporate welfare.”

However, diversity brings its own problems and one that the interviewees identified in the Crawford Media Consulting Report. This said:

“There was a consensus that the pipeline of talent into NZ journalism is broken.

“Newsrooms cannot find experienced journalists to fill vacancies and many in the industry believe the tertiary sector is not supplying sufficiently skilled graduates.

“For this reason, interviewees were enthusiastic about the possibility of a funded cadetship programme and other training initiatives,” the report said.

That highlights the constriction created by the dearth of good quality ethnic journalists.

‘Where are these people?’
“With 110 positions in the second round, that is great, the question is where are we going to find these people?” Stehlin asks in exasperation.

“The other problem is the whole media landscape for the last 30 years has been one of a production village where big broadcasters pick and choose so the small voices never get a look in.

“But that has changed now because the younger generation is simply not watching mainstream and they don’t care about current affairs, they would rather watch themselves doing TikTok.

“The pitch (PIJF) is admirable, it will create opportunities but it remains to be seen because there is a very small pool of Pacific journalists to begin with,” he said.

Where then do the likes of freelance journalists like Portia Mao, a Qantas Award winner who has written for North and South, Newsroom, Herald on Sunday, as well as worked for TVNZ Sunday, 60 minutes on TV3, go? Or are they meant to slip through the cracks?

“I have been working as a journalist in doing in-depth reports on big political and economic or cultural events that have happened in mainstream society since 2004,” Mao said.

“It is important to help the community integrate into New Zealand society by helping them to become informed citizens or residents. Apart from writing, I make video programmes.

Chinese candidate interview
“The video interview with Naisi Chen, the Chinese candidate during the last election got more than 8000 hits,” she says.

“I sometimes write in English to let the mainstream know what is happening in the Chinese community and what the community is concerned about. I do think my work is very important and I get no official support at all.

“It is really hard to make a living as an independent journalist.”

Mao has had to write in collaboration with Kiwi journalists whose bylines tend to dominate articles for fear of reprisals from Chinese authorities.

Of immediate concern is rectifying the broken pipeline of Māori and Pacific journalists.

That is where a training programme called Te Rito aims to train and hire 25 journalists and cadets to inject more Māori and diverse voices into the media.

Te Rito is a collaboration between Māori Television, Newshub, NZME, and Pacific Media Network and other media organisations such as Sunpix.

Funding for training
As Mihingarangi Forbes, presenter of the Māori programme The Hui, said:

“Yes, have been funded to do some training with iwi radio stations, also some consultation work to diversify mainstream newsrooms and we have a podcast on RNZ with Tau [Henare] and Shane [Jones] but it has been held up with covid.”

And, as one who observes from the sidelines but provides vital content, training and equipment to the Pacific Island, Natasha Meleisea, CEO for Pasifika TV (funded by the Ministry of Foreign and Trade, MFAT) and has extensive experience in media, marketing and Aadvertising assesses.

“There is a need to build a pathway for more diverse voices in journalism,” she said.

“It is timely to start thinking about broadening or redefining the concept of mainstream [media] to be more inclusive than divisive. Journalism can play an active role in normalising diversity and promoting acceptance.

“We are beginning to see this now, however, there is always more that can be done. There is hope that the PIJF will help encourage more diverse voices on-air, onscreen and online.” Meleisea said.

With the need for diversity in the media, identified by the catalyst of the 15 March 2019 mosques massacre in Christchurch, the PIJF is a bold move into uncharted waters.

Chance for a global standard
As the Crawford report concludes:

“The PIJF will invest more per year than either the UK or the Canadian PIJ schemes, in a country a fraction the size. The potential impact is big, and the scheme has an opportunity to set the global standard in terms of PIJ reinvention.

“It is not an exaggeration to say that for anyone convinced of the value of news, the initiative represents a crucial test. We hope that the information and recommendations in the full report will assist New Zealand in building a world-leading public interest journalism fund”.

At the heart of it will be diversity.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>